COA: Hospital not liable for nurse's crash.

Byline: Lee Dryden

A suit against a medical provider stemming from a car accident involving an off-duty nurse has been dismissed by a Michigan Court of Appeals panel.

In Harris v. Fox (MiLW No. 08-98868, 5 pages), the panel affirmed the Wayne County Circuit Court, which concluded that there was "no duty on the part of defendant to protect the public from the criminal acts of its employee."

The appeals court panel stated that the harm caused by the defendant nurse was "not within the scope of foreseeability."

The Nov. 15 unpublished per curiam opinion was issued by Judges Christopher M. Murray, Patrick M. Meter and Elizabeth L. Gleicher.

The case

The accident occurred on July 9, 2013, in Northville Township, when defendant Tammy Fox struck plaintiff Ivory Harris's vehicle head-on, according to the appeals court opinion.

"At the time of the collision, Fox was employed by defendant as a registered nurse, but was off-duty, off hospital premises, and in her own personal vehicle. According to plaintiff, Fox was high on Propofol which she allegedly diverted from defendant at the time of the collision," the opinion stated.

Defendant Prime Healthcare Services-Garden City LLC, doing business as Garden City Hospital, sought summary disposition, arguing that there was "no special relationship giving rise to a duty between defendant and plaintiff," and that "even when an employer has knowledge of an employee's history of substance abuse, the employer is under no duty to protect the general public from the actions of the employee that occur outside her scope of employment," according to the opinion.

The defendant also argued that the "plaintiff could not establish any cause of action under a theory of respondeat superior because Fox's actions occurred outside the scope of her employment."

The plaintiff countered that defendant's motion was premature because discovery was ongoing and that defendant breached its duty to plaintiff by "negligently hiring and supervising Fox, creating a foreseeable risk of injury."

The trial court granted summary disposition for the defendant.

COA analysis

Citing Millross v. Plum Hollow Golf Club (1987), the appeals court opinion stated that the "special relationship between employer and employee does not of itself require the employer to protect third parties from off-premises injuries, either by supervising the consumption of alcohol or providing alternate transportation."

"Similarly, an employer does not assume a duty to...